On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 03:28:19PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Cédric Boutillier <boutil@debian.org> [150628 08:47]: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:12:45AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > Can you please read the message below and let me know what you think? > > > > Hi, > > > > After having followed for a couple of years the Ruby BoF thanks to the > > video streaming, I will attend to the event in person this year, so I am > > maybe a bit biased. > > > > If the Ruby BoF keeps the same format as last year, i.e. a discussion > > about various topics, then it doesn't make sense to convert it to a > > talk (or split it into two subevents). > > > > Video coverage for BoF in my opinion is good for people who are > > following live the event, with video streaming and interact via IRC. > > Afterwards, reading a written report is often more useful (you get the > > same amount information in less time). > > I concur; from my PoV last years version (basic meeting with live video > and IRC interaction) worked quite well. > > More or less we're using this as a big videochat room, the recording > won't be very useful. That makes sense; in the case, we could probably say we don't need proper video coverage (thus saving it for events with actually useful recordings), and then use something like firefox hello to provide a live audio/video link for remote poeple? -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature